2022 (9) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Sriraman For the Respondents : Mr. Prabu Mukund Arunkumar Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/R1 rejecting an application for revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for assessment year 2012-13 filed on the ground o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, rejects the application for revision on the ground that no condonation has been sought, which conclusion is factually incorrect. 6. Not content with the conclusion on the aspect of delay, R1 also proceeds to reject the claim on merit, making reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [(2006) 157 Taxman 1]. 7.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, [(2017) 79 taxmann.com 113]. The facts in that case are similar to the present case, insofar as it deals with the power of Commissioner under Section 264 to cause enquiry in regard to claim made by an assessee. 10. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department as captured in para 12 of that order is identical to the stand taken b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder section 264 of the Act extends to passing any order as the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may think fit after making an inquiry and subject to the provisions of the Act, either suo-moto or on an application by the assessee. Though the remedies over lap, power under section 264 is significantly wider and the wisdom of choosing one over the other would really depend on the facts and leg....